When will Nikon catch up/match Canon in Video?

[Derrel]

I mean the D7000 has innacurate metering and the supposedly superior all magnesium alloy body is only partial, also the AF in video mode has been proven to be a gimmick! Not bashing the D7000 as its a lovely camera, but I think it was overhyped. A lot of talk has been aimed at just 'how good the D7000's Autofocus system is', which was the most shocking revelation of all.

DXO marks shows the D7000 as having a superior sensor, but field tests show the 60D matching it in most situations. Camera labs said exactly the same thing, they said the idea the D7000 is a 60D killer is clearly inaccurate and were frustrated by the metering.

Cameralabs??? I'm sorry, but that site is, well, hmm, what is a polite way to phrase it? "Suspect" Yeah, "suspect" is a good word.

Sorry Josh, but the Nikon D7000 does not have 'inaccurate metering'. Thom Hogan's review of the D7000 points out that the web is filled with newbies who continually parrot things they have heard, and in the case of the D7000, what is different about the camera is that it tends to "over-develop" its in-camera JPEG images when users have the image parameters cranked up higher than the baseline, the way they might well be used to with earlier models of Nikon cameras. Here's the URL for his D7000 review: Nikon D7000 Review by Thom Hogan

Here's an excerpt: "I've noticed a bit of chatter on the net about "overexposure." But that's not what's really happening with the D7000 metering system. No, it's that color matching and pattern matching coming into play. And correctly, I think. Let's say, for example, that there's a skin tone in the foreground of your scene. Perhaps the person with that skin is even a bit backlit. Well, the D7000 certainly sees that skin tone and knows where to put it on the tonal scale. But in previous Nikon matrix meters, if the background was producing values that would blow out the histogram, the matrix meter tended (but not always and not completely) to preserve highlights. I don't see as much of that with the D7000 (except in single servo AF). It's not going to preserve those highlights at the expense of what it thinks is "subject." It certainly won't preserve them as much as previous Nikon matrix meters, even when it decides to do so. Two other things play into the "overexposure" issue. First, there's gamma. People coming from older (pre-D3) Nikon bodies and seeing Picture Controls for the first time are reacting to the mid-range boost that the default Picture Control applies compared to the old style image settings. Second is contrast. The defaults (and many of the other Picture Controls) push contrast a bit, and that has a tendency to make bright seem brighter.
The corollary is that if you pop up the flash for some fill, the D7000 seems to get that exposure just a little more on target than previous consumer cameras. Nikon's obviously done a lot of tweaking, and for those of you coming from another Nikon DSLR, there's going to be a learning curve before you manage to fully grock the new matrix patterns and tendencies.
However, all isn't perfect. Be aware of one very big caveat: when the scene you're metering hits 16.3 EV, the matrix metering system gives up and sets its value for 16.3 EV, no matter how much more light there may be. EV 16.3 at ISO 100 is f/11 at 1/500, which is barely beyond Sunny 16. This won't occur all that often in your shooting, but it does occur sometimes, so make note of that. In really bright light conditions (snow, beach, etc.) you probably need to be in centerweighted metering."

Does Cameralabs discuss the specifics of how this camera meters, compared with prior Nikons? Or do they just parrot what other newbies have written after 1-day ownership periods??? Do they even have the experience to understand, EXACTLY< what has been done with the new metering system, the new AF system, and the new sensor and its color response??? I doubt it.

from Nikon D7000 Review by Thom Hogan

 

[Derrel]

Well, all this talk about how "great" d-slr video is, due to its shallow depth of field....here is a video of the new singing sensation Lissie, doping a good cover of Lady Gaga's song Bad Romance. if you download the .flv video from the web, and then convert it, and watch it at a large screen size, you can see that the image capture is pretty high-quality....BUT, if you watch closely, and repeatedly, you'll see what a royal pain in the ass D-slr video is for photographing live, un-blocked action....on even something as simple as a musician standing with feet in one place and leaning or turning his or her body, the d-slr's uber-shallow depth of field means that the images fades in and out of focus, repeatedly, over the course of a normal shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWe07krS8_E

D-SLR video is a fascinating new development, but its shallow depth of field is not really always an advantage: 35mm movie frame is half-frame, so a Canon or Nikon full-frame sensor's video capture is actually double the size of a Hollywood motion picture frame, meaning even more shallow depth of field, and even more-critical focusing needs. At the current time, d-slr video camera implementation of video leaves a LOT to be desired in terms of focusing, as well as in exposure controls, compared with even low-end cinema-quality 3-CCD video cameras, let alone with higher-end video cameras.

One thing not many people are aware of is that right now, the video camera makers are preparing their own counter-offerings, and the development of d-slr video by Canon and Nikon is losing steam at the corporate level; the big two are beginning to see video capabilities as unneeded drains of R&D money that could be better spent on stills engineering, and the presence of video capture has NOT been as big a driver of sales as they had hoped. Some industry writers who I have read have written that the camera makers are not that enthusiastic about adding money to video R&D at the current time...they feel like it just isn't worth it, since the big money video camera makers can easily beat them at video, and so any money spent on video R&D that does not generate a still camera sale is totally wasted...bottom line...d-slr video is one area where the CAMERA makers do not see the value of the money spent on it, since video cam makers AND CELLULAR PHONES WITH VIDEO capability represent HUGE opponents.

 

[Offhand]

Going in and out of focus looks intentional in that video as does the handheld camera movements. It gives it a dreamy look. Pulling focus in that situation would be pretty easy.

 

[o hey tyler]

Someone questioned Nikon and now Derrel has his panties in an knot so tight it's like having a neutron star between his legs.

 

[usayit]

Someone questioned Nikon and now Derrel has his panties in an knot so tight it's like having a neutron star between his legs.

Speaking from experience... LOL.

 

[Village Idiot]

AF101 Still has a smaller sensor than the 5d mkii and (18x13 vs 36x24), plus it only records in 4:2:0 so its not strictly dominant. It's also twice as expensive.


IMO: PMW3>>AF101.

I think Nikon really just hates that they have to add video functionality to their DSLRs. They don't have the same capital resources to make the big switchover like Canon does.

Nikon was the first company to release a DSLR with video. Canon just did it better.

It's like Nikon thought it would be something for soccer moms and family vacations where as Canon's first release was in the 5D MKII with full 1080P. They could have seen the pontential for the camera based on their experience with their video camera division. I mean, if there was an official stat or poll somewhere, I'm sure it would show that a lot of film makers who are not photographers bought 5D MKII's for the sole purpose of creating video.

 

[Village Idiot]

Well, all this talk about how "great" d-slr video is, due to its shallow depth of field....here is a video of the new singing sensation Lissie, doping a good cover of Lady Gaga's song Bad Romance. if you download the .flv video from the web, and then convert it, and watch it at a large screen size, you can see that the image capture is pretty high-quality....BUT, if you watch closely, and repeatedly, you'll see what a royal pain in the ass D-slr video is for photographing live, un-blocked action....on even something as simple as a musician standing with feet in one place and leaning or turning his or her body, the d-slr's uber-shallow depth of field means that the images fades in and out of focus, repeatedly, over the course of a normal shot.

YouTube - &#x202a;Lady Gaga - Bad Romance - live cover - Lissie&#x202c;&rlm;

D-SLR video is a fascinating new development, but its shallow depth of field is not really always an advantage: 35mm movie frame is half-frame, so a Canon or Nikon full-frame sensor's video capture is actually double the size of a Hollywood motion picture frame, meaning even more shallow depth of field, and even more-critical focusing needs. At the current time, d-slr video camera implementation of video leaves a LOT to be desired in terms of focusing, as well as in exposure controls, compared with even low-end cinema-quality 3-CCD video cameras, let alone with higher-end video cameras.

One thing not many people are aware of is that right now, the video camera makers are preparing their own counter-offerings, and the development of d-slr video by Canon and Nikon is losing steam at the corporate level; the big two are beginning to see video capabilities as unneeded drains of R&D money that could be better spent on stills engineering, and the presence of video capture has NOT been as big a driver of sales as they had hoped. Some industry writers who I have read have written that the camera makers are not that enthusiastic about adding money to video R&D at the current time...they feel like it just isn't worth it, since the big money video camera makers can easily beat them at video, and so any money spent on video R&D that does not generate a still camera sale is totally wasted...bottom line...d-slr video is one area where the CAMERA makers do not see the value of the money spent on it, since video cam makers AND CELLULAR PHONES WITH VIDEO capability represent HUGE opponents.

What happens if I make that there aperture number thingy a bigger number? I wonder...

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Derrel you have definitely put me right on the D7000 in terms of still quality, I think that review by thom Hogan seems very accurate. Perhaps I will not be so keen to check Camera labs in the future! Thanks for the tip.

Derrel, just out of interest. Do you have any reference pages about Canon/Nikon not putting money into R and D on Video? I'm shocked at this, as I keep hearing a ton of voices saying Canon has regained market share due to DSLR video boosting sales. Is this BS aswell?? Also heard alot of people slamming Nikon for not working harder on improving Video. My main concern is that I don't want Nikon to slip behind Canon again due to something as dumb as frame rates on Video, when at this current time they are ahead in still's performance.

And Mike you may have a point, perhaps I should begin with a camcorder. But at same time, can ANYONE possibly show me results from a camcorder that match a DSLR in terms of movie like Shallow DOF? Most camcorder footage I see looks like home movie/ mobile phone style videography! And this is really not the look I am aiming for. Any of the camcorders that do have interchangeable lenses cost more than a top of the range DSLR, which again I find troubling. If I start seeing truly film like camcorder footage, then I will be tempted. But my budget for a camcorder would be £500 tops and I find it hard to see at this price that I could find amatch for the Shallow DOF look a DSLR gives.

Videographers your thoughts will be appreciated on this, are there videographers out there using basic camcorders to create beautiful movie like videos?? I hear the GH2 produces better video than the 5D MKII for a start, which is a fairly reasonable price.

 

[Village Idiot]

Derrel you have definitely put me right on the D7000 in terms of still quality, I think that review by thom Hogan seems very accurate. Perhaps I will not be so keen to check Camera labs in the future! Thanks for the tip.

Derrel, just out of interest. Do you have any reference pages about Canon/Nikon not putting money into R and D on Video? I'm shocked at this, as I keep hearing a ton of voices saying Canon has regained market share due to DSLR video boosting sales. Is this BS aswell?? Also heard alot of people slamming Nikon for not working harder on improving Video. My main concern is that I don't want Nikon to slip behind Canon again due to something as dumb as frame rates on Video, when at this current time they are ahead in still's performance.

And Mike you may have a point, perhaps I should begin with a camcorder. But at same time, can ANYONE possibly show me results from a camcorder that match a DSLR in terms of movie like Shallow DOF? Most camcorder footage I see looks like home movie/ mobile phone style videography! And this is really not the look I am aiming for. Any of the camcorders that do have interchangeable lenses cost more than a top of the range DSLR, which again I find troubling. If I start seeing truly film like camcorder footage, then I will be tempted. But my budget for a camcorder would be £500 tops and I find it hard to see at this price that I could find amatch for the Shallow DOF look a DSLR gives.

Videographers your thoughts will be appreciated on this, are there videographers out there using basic camcorders to create beautiful movie like videos?? I hear the GH2 produces better video than the 5D MKII for a start, which is a fairly reasonable price.

I saw something that it's because manufactures are developing dedicated videocameras with full frame sensors and detachable lenses, but even the Sony preview I saw was north of $5,500 for just the body. That's still a lot of money.

 

[ulrichsd]

There was recently a story on NPR that interviewed a pro-video-camera-rental store. Quite interesting.

Say 'Cheese' ... Or Wait, Maybe 'Action'? : The Picture Show : NPR

From the article:
"Rector built his business on the premise that professional video cameras are just too expensive for most people to own. At the time, the technology was BetaCams, which still run $50,000 or more. "If cameras keep getting better and cheaper," he says, "yeah, we're in trouble for sure.""

 

[usayit]

I am not going to say that any particukar site online is worth anything but to call one place suspect and follow up with a link to Thom's site is in itself suspect... given that Thom is so heavily invested in Nikon, I cant see it being an unbiased resource.

If you want to at least pretend to be an informed consumer, stop looking for someone to point you to the product to buy. Do your own research and figure it out. Read several resources and examine the samples and features. Find what fits you not some arbitrary person with an online presence.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I am not going to say that any particukar site online is worth anything but to call one place suspect and follow up with a link to Thom's site is in itself suspect... given that Thom is so heavily invested in Nikon, I cant see it being an unbiased resource.

If you want to at least pretend to be an informed consumer, stop looking for someone to point you to the product to buy. Do your own research and figure it out. Read several resources and examine the samples and features. Find what fits you not some arbitrary person with an online presence.

A wonderfully patronising response! I'm not quite sure your right on this at all, Hogan has never ever come across as a Nikon fan boy to me. So the idea that he is defending the camera because he's a Nikon fan boy is a bit much! It seem's to me he is looking at technical aspects. Obviously Hogan has a love of Nikon products, but he has pointed out Nikons weaknesses on many occasions!! I was certainly interested to see a different take on the problems that are being spoken about frequently on the net. You knock derrel for providing that link, but he actually puts time and effort into making informative replies.

And to be honest.. I'm not looking for someone to point me in the direction of a product! I see people making the argument that I should buy a camcorder if I want to do video. So I asked people if they could show me amazing results with a Camcorder? Because the revolution I hear about is with DSLR video, because DSLR video provides movie results on a BUDGET. So I was wanting to see what suggestions people would come up with, my reason for asking the questions I have is so I can learn more from people actually using equipment to create video. As mentioned, proper video cameras cost an arm and a leg. And I don't have an arm and a leg to sell to experiment with movie like video.

All I have heard is negativity thrown at Nikon for video, so it made me question whether I should continue to invest in Nikon if I want to use video features. My aim in asking this question was so I could become a more 'INFORMED' consumer. So then I can as you say 'PRETEND' to be an 'INFORMED' consumer when I go and buy my next camera?

Seriously though, to all the helpful responders who decided not to patronise me! I obviously came to the right place, because getting some decent responses from you guys has made me realise it would be completely dumb on my part to switch to Canon because of a few web rumours. Perhaps I have been reading too much of the wrong stuff!

 

[o hey tyler]

I am not going to say that any particukar site online is worth anything but to call one place suspect and follow up with a link to Thom's site is in itself suspect... given that Thom is so heavily invested in Nikon, I cant see it being an unbiased resource.

If you want to at least pretend to be an informed consumer, stop looking for someone to point you to the product to buy. Do your own research and figure it out. Read several resources and examine the samples and features. Find what fits you not some arbitrary person with an online presence.

A wonderfully patronising response! I'm not quite sure your right on this at all, Hogan has never ever come across as a Nikon fan boy to me.

Have you googled "Thom Hogan"? What's the first link that comes up? What's contained in the page name? Thom Hogan is as unbiased as Faux News.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel you have definitely put me right on the D7000 in terms of still quality, I think that review by thom Hogan seems very accurate. Perhaps I will not be so keen to check Camera labs in the future! Thanks for the tip.

Derrel, just out of interest. Do you have any reference pages about Canon/Nikon not putting money into R and D on Video? I'm shocked at this, as I keep hearing a ton of voices saying Canon has regained market share due to DSLR video boosting sales. Is this BS aswell?? Also heard alot of people slamming Nikon for not working harder on improving Video. My main concern is that I don't want Nikon to slip behind Canon again due to something as dumb as frame rates on Video, when at this current time they are ahead in still's performance.

And Mike you may have a point, perhaps I should begin with a camcorder. But at same time, can ANYONE possibly show me results from a camcorder that match a DSLR in terms of movie like Shallow DOF? Most camcorder footage I see looks like home movie/ mobile phone style videography! And this is really not the look I am aiming for. Any of the camcorders that do have interchangeable lenses cost more than a top of the range DSLR, which again I find troubling. If I start seeing truly film like camcorder footage, then I will be tempted. But my budget for a camcorder would be £500 tops and I find it hard to see at this price that I could find amatch for the Shallow DOF look a DSLR gives.

Videographers your thoughts will be appreciated on this, are there videographers out there using basic camcorders to create beautiful movie like videos?? I hear the GH2 produces better video than the 5D MKII for a start, which is a fairly reasonable price.

I saw something that it's because manufactures are developing dedicated videocameras with full frame sensors and detachable lenses, but even the Sony preview I saw was north of $5,500 for just the body. That's still a lot of money.

I've been reading Thom Hogan's web site for the past few years. He's a expert on Nikon equipment, as well as on the camera industry, with a lot of insider information. He recently spoke to Nikon Japan executives, in Japan. He's made a number of comments about what the Japanese camera makers take into consideration in many different aspects of camera production, planning, model iteration, R&D,etc,etc. According to him, many Japanese camera engineers and designers consider video to be a distraction from the STILL photography side of camera design and manufacturing. MARKETING departments on the other hand, have their opinion. As most people understand, Nikon is a very engineering-oriented, proud, prideful, Japanese lens maker and camera maker, and has long focused on engineering. Canon, as many are familiar, is a larger,more-diversified company, driven heavily by MARKETING. If you want a camera that will sell to the type of customer that makes up the majority of camera customers, you will appeal to the lowest common denominator, and will try and score the highest MARKETING VALUE...ie things like higher megapixel rankings, cute names, like "Rebel" and "KISS", an clever or even misleading advertising, like using a Rebel from the stadium stands and capturing an NFL running back's touchdown scoring action sequence, using a piece of **** Canon consumer zoom lens--that's an actual Canon TV commercial!!! But, as Village Idiot pointed out, the video camera makers are already at work designing VIDEO CAMERAS that will challenge d-slr video, and which will have broader feature sets, better controls, better focusing systems, and will be dedicated video capture devices, priced comparably to what it costs to deck out a d-slr at Zacuto, to make it into a capable video capture device. According to Hogan's multiple articles over the last 12 months, the camera designers and engineers, as well as the marketing departments, are realizing that video in d-slrs is not really expanding their sales numbers much and it is NOT helping boost profit margins. The camera makers are more interested in profit margins; ELIMINATING features, or learning how to trim costs by better manufacturing processes, or by finding cheaper sources of materials and components is the way the Japanese camera makers typically try to boost profit on a camera model as it moves through its lifetime. As VI mentioned, a $5,500 Sony video camera really is not out of line when a Canon 5D-II has been $2699, PLUS it requires $3,500 in sound and grip and support ancillary do-dads to make it into a truly comparable tool for a real videographer. Sales of Canon 5D models have never been strong. The original premiered at $3499 and had to be rebated and price-lowered multiple times, in order to establish even modest sales numbers. $2,700 cameras, and $2,400 cameras are simply NOT big sellers; the real money is in the high-volume, low-end cameras, and that is where the camera makers like Nikon and Canon and Sony make the vast,vast majority of their sales volume and their profit margins.

Check out Zacuto's bargain-basement $475 kit...and then add $399 for even a "decent" microphone to do electronic news gathering, and you can see that adding $1,000 to the cost of a d-slr, in order to crete a less-than-video-camera capable platform means that in order to achieve any really high-volume sales in the Electronic News Gathering/entry-level category, the camera makers will not be able to compete with video camera makers whose products do not need to be also a high-quality, reflex still camera.
And, at the other end, if you read any of the on-line daily metro newspaper web sites around the USA, you will see many sports and news reporters are filing stories done on--their iPhones!!!!!

DSLR Kits | Zacuto USA

 

[Derrel]

I am not going to say that any particukar site online is worth anything but to call one place suspect and follow up with a link to Thom's site is in itself suspect... given that Thom is so heavily invested in Nikon, I cant see it being an unbiased resource.

If you want to at least pretend to be an informed consumer, stop looking for someone to point you to the product to buy. Do your own research and figure it out. Read several resources and examine the samples and features. Find what fits you not some arbitrary person with an online presence.

A wonderfully patronising response! I'm not quite sure your right on this at all, Hogan has never ever come across as a Nikon fan boy to me.

Have you googled "Thom Hogan"? What's the first link that comes up? What's contained in the page name? Thom Hogan is as unbiased as Faux News.

Sorry, usayit, sorry o hey tyler...Thom Hogan was involved with one of the world's first successful digital camera product launches--that of the old Apple QuickTake digital camera, back when you were crapping in your diapers tyler, and back when usayit was living in his mom's basement and popping zits in the mirror. Yes, Hogan is a Nikon expert. He has written quite a few books on Nikon flash operation, and Nikon camera operation. He was a Minolta user at one time, but he saw the light some years ago. He was recently invited to directly address the executives of Nikon, Japan, in Japan, in a personal presentation about his ideas on modern cameras and the re-invention of the camera, and how it might be better integrated into the new world of shoot--import--caption--catalogue--upload-archive. Yeah....Thom Hogan...we have a New Jersey Leicaphile who follows me around this site trying to discredit almost anything I write, (that would be usayit), AND we have a hard-core pot-smoking stoner in o hey tyler....BOTH 'men" trying to discredit Thom Hogan's opinions on the camera industry. How rich!!!

Pretty comical....a guy who takes cheap shots at me in his signature file, usayit, and a stoner who posts photos of bongs and big buds of marijuana, both trying to act as if THEY have any insight into the camera business!!! And trying to tear down a published author, AND a man that Nikon Japan brought in to address the executives of Nikon Corporation about camera design and the imaging business....so...who do we believe?? My little New Joisey nemesis, or our little pot-smoker??? Or the man, Thom Hogan, who presented HIS IDEAS on the CAMERA BUSINESS to the executives of Nikon Japan? Pretty obvious, it's not usayit or o hey light up a bong hit...